I'm sure lurkers wait with baited breath for every word that flies from you fingers.
It sure was easy to catch you in a flat lie.
You don't even deny it.
Walt
What lie? I wrote: "But if you haven't been following the thread, a certain poster who holds the opinion that 'pursuant' is nit-picking." The poster in question certainly isn't me, I was extremely adamant about observing the word "pursuant", because that poster misunderstands the supremacy clause. Here's what Hamilton observed in Federalist 33:
"But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation and will deserve to be treated as such."Anything not pursuant must be righteously ignored.
You don't even deny it.
Deny what? I wrote: "As you well know, the supremacy clause holds that the Constitution is supreme over mere legislative acts." Which is quite true. So again, deny what - that I didn't put the word "pursuant" into my response? Hamilton had already answered you:
It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution; which I mention merely as an instance of caution in the Convention; since that limitation would have been to be understood though it had not been expressed.Try again.